Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Illegal downloading and file sharing IS theft, why don't you admit it? Watch

    • Offline

      0
      It's theft, i'd steal a car if i could download it in under 2 minutes.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beadle's About)
      C'mon people....you wouldn't kill off footballers' livelihoods if you were a football fan by not paying to get into a football match or by stealing a football shirt. But people who claim to love music have no problems robbing the artists of part of their income by not paying for their music. The hypocrisy of so called 'music fans' is just unbelievable. You are killing it for the current generation of musicians, who are struggling like hell to make a living from their music.
      I probably would, because footballers get paid waaaaaaay too much. If I could get in a football match for free as easily as i can download music, I probably would. I get that this isn't the point...but yeah..
      Offline

      10
      ReputationRep:
      Except artists tend to make more off tours and merchandise than they do through record sales. Besides, I thought you were talking about new musicians.

      Yep, people will take your music without paying for it but at the same time without the Internet nobody would get the chance to hear your music in the first place.

      Plenty of other hobbyists/amateurs don't even have the chance to get paid for doing what they love yet they continue to do it. What makes music production so different?
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beadle's About)
      A question for you so called music fans out there.....do you actually care about new artists, or do you just care about getting music for free on your computer so you've got more money spare to spend down the pub?

      C'mon, I want to know. You can't call yourself a music lover yet blatantly take someone's music without paying. I'm not talking about millionaire rock stars from the 80s. I'm talking about struggling musicians who don't have any money and are entitled to be pay for their creative works.
      I attend the shows (and if it's a new band starting out then that's where the money is) and if they are good I buy the t-shirt. You sound seriously bitter. Is your band kind of ****?

      Also Jamie Mallender's thing is misleading. He's a very successful musician who is most certainly not 'scratching around to make a living' or whatever bull**** he said.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I'll pay for good independent music. But big artists... pshhhtt....
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I download music illegally. I know it's theft, but I don't give a ****. Sue me.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      Because otherwise it would cost over 500 pounds? I listen to a lot of classic rock anyway so those bands are already loaded.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beadle's About)
      Same old argument I'm afraid....trying to make excuses for not paying for something.

      By not paying for the music, the artist isn't getting his/her fair share of money into their bank account (or paypal account). If they can't make enough money out of their music, they will go out of business and won't be able to record or tour with any more music.

      So it does hurt the artist by not paying, and also hurts the future of music.
      But they're not going to be getting any money from me anyway, regardless of whether I download the track or not. I don't think free downloading hurts the artist at all - he's in exactly the same position before and after I download the music. If I decide not to download their album off a torrent site, it doesn't mean money is suddenly going to randomly appear in their bank account.


      Free downloading does either one of the following things:
      [1] It enables me to listen to music I would have otherwise not listened to.
      [2] It enables me to listen to music for free, that I would have otherwise paid for.

      You're talking about situation 2, where downloading the music for free means the artist is financially worse off than he would have otherwise been. I agree, this could be said to hurt the music industry. But I'm talking about situation 1. It makes no difference to the artist whether I download the music for free or not - he gets no money either way.


      In any case, I think it's the job of the music industry to adapt to the market, and find better ways of distributing their music. I may be "damaging" the Pepsi Company by drinking Coke every day - but that's hardly immoral on my part. It's Pepsi's job to make their product more attractive than the alternatives. Similarly, it's the music industry's job to create a method of distributing music which is profitable to them, while at the same time being more attractive to the consumer than the alternative methods of obtaining it.
      Free downloading encourages the music industry to adapt, and I see that as a good thing.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Steevee)
      Yes, I did read it :rolleyes:

      I do care about music, and yet I download, is there a conflict of interests there? I don't think so. You see, I also support artists. I buy merchandise, I tell my friends and I try to get to shows. But do I always buy their music? No. That's doesn't mean I don't care about the industry, it means I like to have things on my own terms. It's often a case of 'stealing' something worth £5 and later buying a £20 shirt. It's not immoral, and I don't think it's wrong. It is not theft in the traditional sense, plain and simple.




      Actually, if an Artist is indepedent I am far more likley to buy their music.

      I don't like record labels for the most part. Certainley not the major ones, and I wont support them. They screw over new artists and keep them under their thumb as money making machines. If anyone is truly hurting the industry it is the record labels. Just read the stories of damn near any band, the laels always screw them over. This is why I would rather 'steal' the music and buy something where a larger purportion of the money goes to the artists.

      In this day an age going independent isn't all that hard, and there are thousands of success stories.

      The downfall of the labels can only be a good thing, and this is why they so desperatley fight 'piracy', because it destroys their money mking machine, not because it hurts the music.
      Well I can understand wanting to put greedy record labels out of business....but you've got to admit it's wrong to steal an independent artist's music, because they are not likely to be making much money out of their music as it is. Like the guy in the example above. I don't think a true fan would do that to an artist they knew was starving and struggling. Like that guy said, 79p isn't much to ask for a song.

      I still think the last generation of the past 10 years has a bad attitude towards musicians....they don't realise the effort and expense that goes into creating music and trying to start a musical career from scratch with no financial backing. Musical equipment costs hundreds, if not thousands of pounds to buy. Promotion costs money. Touring and the traveling costs that go with it cost money. Plus musicians have to eat and pay bills just like anyone else does. Every musician might appear to be a 'hero' or a 'God' that people look up to....but they're still human and need money just like everyone else does.

      All the 'music fans' think about is saving a few quid instead of looking at it from the artist's point of view. How would they like it if they were in that position and their so called 'fans' took away their income stream and they couldn't carry on with their art, heck they couldn't even pay their rent? They would surely be angry and frustrated too, but this is what they don't think about.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      I love music, I perform in bands as a drummer, I download music.

      Why?

      Because if I want to support an artist they can get their arses down to ****ing Peterborough and show me why I should be supporting them. If you're an amazing band and deserve to be living off what you do, make your performances amazing. I'll pay to go to gigs because to me that's what real music is. Sure you can beef it up and make it sound better over the computer, but if you need to get someone else to make your music better, I'm sorry but I'm not paying for that rubbish.

      Bottom line - You want to make a living, go out and PERFORM. Half bands these days may sound good on CDs but in reality are absolutely awful. If you want to make it big, perform. Albums should be a way of spreading your influence and having people listen to your music, you should make money by having amazing gigs, not by having some guy make you sound good when you sound ****. And if you perform ****e, get out the industry.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      I hate the fact that downloading is killing every genre but pop. So many of my favourite bands have gone to the wall because of it (Viatrophy, Nato, Still Remains, Himsa, Hopesfall, Johnny Truant )

      So the **** survives whilst true talent dies :mad: Thank **** every so often a Bullet For My Valentine, Killswitch Engage or Lamb Of God breaks through so I know I'll have something good to listen to five years down the line
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tazarooni89)
      But they're not going to be getting any money anyway, regardless of whether I download the track or not.

      If I decide not to download their album off a torrent site, it doesn't mean money is suddenly going to randomly appear in their bank account.
      Well if you downloaded it off a torrent site, you should then go to the artist's site and buy it there so they get money for it, or it's still robbing the artist of money he/she otherwise would've got.

      If 1000 people downloaded an artist's song free when they should've paid 79p each, that poor artist is now out of 789 pounds he would've got if people had paid for their music. Can't you see the problem? It starts to add up when a lot of people start not paying.
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beadle's About)
      Well I can understand wanting to put greedy record labels out of business....but you've got to admit it's wrong to steal an independent artist's music, because they are not likely to be making much money out of their music as it is. Like the guy in the example above. I don't think a true fan would do that to an artist they knew was starving and struggling. Like that guy said, 79p isn't much to ask for a song.

      I still think the last generation of the past 10 years has a bad attitude towards musicians....they don't realise the effort and expense that goes into creating music and trying to start a musical career from scratch with no financial backing. Musical equipment costs hundreds, if not thousands of pounds to buy. Promotion costs money. Touring and the traveling costs that go with it cost money. Plus musicians have to eat and pay bills just like anyone else does. Every musician might appear to be a 'hero' or a 'God' that people look up to....but they're still human and need money just like everyone else does.
      I understand your position morally, but I'd still maintain that piracy isn't theft.

      Anyway, I still wouldn' say it's wrong all the time. It all depends on the intent. I've downloaded 2 albums of an independent artist's back catalouge. I didn't pay for them, and that artist works other than their music. I have however bought 1 of their albums, and introduced them to 4 friends who like them, who will g on to introduce them to more people. None of this would have hapened without the pirated first album.

      Am I morally wrong there? I mean, I have helped the artist, but I 'stole' the first album.

      This is what I'm talking about, there is no black and white in these cases, and you can't make it so. Free music can have exponential viral airing, getting to an audience far wider than it ever would have. Equally, it can take away revenue from struggling artists. It's swings and round-abouts.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I feel so guilty and ashamed , ah you are morally righteous. You will go to heaven
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beadle's About)
      Same old argument I'm afraid....trying to make excuses for not paying for something.

      By not paying for the music, the artist isn't getting his/her fair share of money into their bank account (or paypal account). If they can't make enough money out of their music, they will go out of business and won't be able to record or tour with any more music.

      So it does hurt the artist by not paying, and also hurts the future of music.
      The guy you quoted was spot on. When deciding whether to download or not you must consider the effect of YOUR actions on the overall situtation. When being realistic about things whether you download or not will have a negligable impact on the artist and the music that they produce and because your actions don't have a negative impact on anyone you can justify doing it. To use a bit of game theoretic anaylsis it is a typical 'tradgedy of the commons'. What ever everybody else does you are better off downloading because you value free music above the loss of music you suffer from your decision ( which is really 0). Yes, it may be better for everybody to pay but unfortunatly the structure of the game does not allow it.

      You have to stay realistic and look at the actual effects of your actions.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beadle's About)
      Well if you downloaded it off a torrent site, you should then go to the artist's site and buy it there so they get money for it, or it's still robbing the artist of money he/she otherwise would've got.

      If 1000 people downloaded an artist's song free when they should've paid 79p each, that poor artist is now out of 789 pounds he would've got if people had paid for their music. Can't you see the problem? It starts to add up when a lot of people start not paying.
      If that poor artist is so amazing then if he performed a gig to 500 people, getting 20% of ticket sales for £10 then he'd make £1000.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Also as someone that studies zen buddhism. I feel I can argue any concept or belief. So here I go.

      It is just a belief that people "SHOULD" be given a piece of paper "money" for doing something. It is also a belief that they can charge however much they like. It is also a belief that anyone "Owns" anything. It is a belief that anything is "legal or illegal" and it is a belief that such a thing as theft exists if we are all one. We are all sharing.

      Everything I just said above is also a belief.

      Beliefs are strong thoughts. Thoughts are generally innaccurate/not fully representative labels and fragments of reality displayed by uses of symbols and language.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tazarooni89)
      You're not really "killing" it though are you? You're just not supporting it.

      Obviously paying for the download helps the artist more than not paying for it. But unpaid downloading doesn't have any actual detrimental effect on the artist either. It's not like stealing a bracelet from a jewellery shop, where the shopkeeper actually loses something.

      You could think of it like this. Consider the following two scenarios:
      1] I don't pay for the music, and don't listen to it.
      2] I don't pay for the music, but I download it and listen to it anyway.
      As far as the artist is concerned, the two scenarios are exactly the same, he receives no money either way. But as far as I'm concerned, scenario 2 is better than scenario 1, because I get to listen to the music. From a utilitarian point of view, scenario 2 is more moral than scenario 1. And I'm sure we'd all agree that there's nothing immoral about scenario 1.
      Plus, with scenario 2, you may end up buying tickets or merch, whereas in scenario 1, the artist gets NO money
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Deep down i totally agree with OP. Put aside who you are 'depriving' of said item be it digital or physical as the fact is it was made to sell and support its creator unless it is given out for free (some of which is if you look in the right places)

      People wonder why the x factor is so popular.. well, it is aimed at impressionable young teenagers/single mums and a few other groups with no/limited knowledge of file sharing.. they will spend money on the music making it popular...look at the charts from the 80's onwards.. the trend of empty generic music has grown as the internet has grown.. and in a way its the self appointed true music fans fault...

      Jesus... i buy dnb and hip hop on vinyl and the odd cd but most of my collection is 'shared' so im not doing anything positive towards supporting the many genres and artists i love, i am indeed a hypocrite.

      The whole 'more money of merch/gigs etc could also tie in with this trend or just be an easy scapegoat for people who dont buy music..

      OP forcing a serious eye opening for me as i havent thought about this too much... i cant see how anyone could disagree either.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beadle's About)
      Well if you downloaded it off a torrent site, you should then go to the artist's site and buy it there so they get money for it, or it's still robbing the artist of money he/she otherwise would've got.
      See the edit to my previous post:

      Free downloading does either one of the following things:
      [1] It enables me to listen to music I would have otherwise not listened to.
      [2] It enables me to listen to music for free, that I would have otherwise paid for.

      You're talking about situation 2, where downloading the music for free means the artist is financially worse off than he would have otherwise been. I agree, this could be said to hurt the music industry. But I'm talking about situation 1. It makes no difference to the artist whether I download the music for free or not - he gets no money either way.


      I'm not robbing the artist of money he would have otherwise got. If I decided not to torrent the music, he would have still got no money from me.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    TSR wiki music section

    Quick link:

    Unanswered music threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.